Iran - will we soon face another aggressive act?

[TCO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"you do."

I want another 9-11?
In that case I'd be a Bush fan and beg for the invasion of Iran, Syria and most of all, Saudi Arabia.

"It's about cutting the balls off the people who attacked us."

Iraq? Nope.
Syria? Nope.
Iran? Nope.
Saudi Arabia? Not the regime, but enemies of the regime.

Yup, makes sense.

1. Me saying that you want 9-11 makes as much sense as you asking wether Bush wants another one. We know that your question is sarcastic and rhetorical. As is my retort. Discussing what will lead to another 9-11 makes more sense. That is where the debate over appeasement versus antagonization comes up.

As I said before, there is more here than just hunting down and killing Al Queda. The general tripwire for what it will take to get us to respond to enemies has gotten tighter. In 1986, we bombed Khadaffi for his support of terrorists (an action that was opposed by most of the current "old Europe" crowd.) Nowadays, we may be even more harsh/ready to take action. As I said, we have decided to take a more active policy. Maybe if we had responded to The Cole and embassy bombings more, we wouldn't have had 9-11. Maybe if France had called Hitler on occupying the Rhineland, they wouldn't have ended up with Germans goosestepping through the Arc de Triomph. Time will tell. Under-response has dangers as well as over-response, Roland.

[Panag]

DATE=5/25/2003

TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT

TITLE=IRAN/REFORMISTS (L-O)

NUMBER=2-303635

BYLINE=

DATELINE=CAIRO

INTERNET=YES

CONTENT=

VOICED AT:



INTRO: Nearly 130 members of Iran's reformist-led parliament have signed an open letter calling for the country's top religious leader to break the deadlock holding up political and social changes. V-O-A's Dale Gavlak has details from our Middle East bureau in Cairo.


TEXT: This latest move by Iran's reformists is seen as a last attempt to rescue the political reform process endorsed by President Mohamed Khatami. The open letter calls for supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to accept reforms and stop unelected government institutions from blocking changes.


It names Iran's Guardian Council as the biggest obstacle to reform. The 12-man Council can veto legislation it considers unconstitutional or contrary to Islamic law.


The Council recently rejected a parliamentary bill seeking to curtail its power to disqualify candidates from elections. It also refused a bill giving President Khatami the right to question rulings made by Iran's hard-line judiciary system.


Although reform supporters won a parliamentary majority two-years ago, their decisions have been consistently overruled by the Guardian Council and the conservative clerics who control Iran's courts.


An Iran expert, Pakinam el-Sharkawy, political science professor at Cairo University, says the country's hard-liners are gaining ground in Iran, partly due to the U-S led attack on Iraq.


/// SHARKAWY ACT ///


In the domestic arena, the conservatives begin more and more to regain some of their power within the major sector in the society. They see the Iranian society as threatened by an external force on the regional arena, so the conservatives in this time of crisis have regained some of their credibility.


/// END ACT ///


Iranian authorities told shops to stop producing and selling women's coats which are considered by hard-liners to be too tight or too short.


Under the country's strict Islamic law, women must dress in loose-fitting, ankle-length clothes and cover their hair and neck with scarves. Violators are fined or sometimes even lashed.


Reformists warn Ayatollah Khamenei that the conservatives are out of touch with Iran's mainstream society and particularly with its youthful majority. They say time may be running out for change from within.


Political and social tensions in Iran are coinciding, they say, with a changed geopolitical reality. With the fall the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Iran is now surrounded by countries that in varying degrees are under U-S influence. (SIGNED)


NEB/DG/DW

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sandman
The Saudi armed forces are equipped with American technology, a fundamentalist non-Saudi Arabia would be a considerable challenge to defeat, unless America has some kill-switches for its machines.

It's more about the soldier than the weapon. My uncle used to dogfight guys in a plane that was 20 years older and wax the pilots in his airwing.

Plus remember what Moshe Dyan said about fighting Arabs.

[TCO]

Originally posted by elijah

Revenge is irrelevant and counter-productive.

Did you argue against the war in Afghanistan?

[TCO]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


actually it is about multiplying the volunterers in their ranks

I guess we will see who is more resolute.

[Pekka]

Yes, it depends how well the soldier uses his weapon than how good the weapon is. But with Punisher Weapon Systems a skilled fighter will make lots of destruction and misery to his enemies.

[TCO]

Originally posted by elijah
Ummm, am I to take it that the Americans among us actually would support an action against Iran, or any other fallaciously names "axis of evil" country?

No. We are arguing a lot of hypotheticals and subpoints. Or at least I am. I stated what I would need to know above to decide on an invasion. And even than it would still be a tough call for me. (As was Iraq.) But just because a decision is tough is not an argument for inaction.

[Kidlicious]

If the American people supported a war against Iran Bush would be all over it.

[Sandman]

Saudi spends three times as much as Israel on the military , and as a percentage of GDP, more than any other country. At least some of that is going to go into training.

What did Moshe Dyan say about Arabs?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sandman


What did Moshe Dyan say about Arabs?

"It is easy to look like a great general, when you fight Arabs."

[Whaleboy]

"Dealing with domestic terrorists is in my opinion totally different than with foreign ones"

Not really, same thing. Innocent humans get killed by desperate people who, to sum up my argument simplistically, have nothing better to do. (Of course they are encouraged to terrorism by their targets antagonising them).

"What does globalization have anything to do with Islamic terrorism?"

Globalisation (something I support in principle, but not in practice), is one piece of a small puzzle. Admittedly it hasnt much to do with Islamic terrorism, but I was referring to the general feeling towards the US in the third world, as poor nations are often adversely affected by globalisation, and the corrupt governments that have been created as a direct result of this (look at general soeharto).

One of the Islamic worlds main sticking points with the US is the issue of US support for Israel, and Israeli support for American actions. I hope this gets resolved soon, but doubt it will, the "roadmap" to peace, which I believe was voted against by a number of cabinet members, is flawed, as is the current state of the politics in that region. Weak Palestinian admin. plus stubborn, militaristic, right wing regime in Israel, with a prime minister who by rights should be indicted for war crimes in Lebanon.

"Developing countries rarely complain about globalization"

The corrupt governments installed by the CIA and supported by the globalised companies rarely complain about globalisation. *SHOCK*. What the ordinary people say is a different matter.

"having some investment is better than nothing at all"

Good, people-friendly investment is better than £0.40 / day, 18 hour shifts under armed guard, while medicines to cure pandemic illnesses like AIDS, and basic illnesses like cholera, TB etc are priced way out of the reach of these people.

"Globalization is in reality a process that diffuses the wealth from developed nations to developing ones"

Go to Asia, Africa, Latin America, Caribbean and the Pacific etc. Diffusion of wealth? Such nations have great human, cultural, mineral resources, yet they are reduced to beggars on the international scene. Look at some globalised parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, and their sugar industries. Its growing all around, yet people are too poor to buy it. Meantime, the West grows fat off the suffering, the blood, sweat and tears off these people, who are working in near-slavery conditions. I say that, because if they dont work for those firms, they die. If they do work for those firms, then their quality of life is such that I would probably rather die.

"No, the stick is absolutely required to get rid of the hard core bad guys. Saddam, Uday, Osama, Mullah Omar, and the likes must be destroyed"

My dispute with that is purely philosophical, but for arguments sake, assume that is correct. It must be done when the dust has settled, otherwise, taking them out will only p!ss them off more, and undoubtably spawn 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc more Saddam Husseins, Bin Ladens etc. My preferred solution is to encourage anti-terrorism voices in the community that can counter with logic and reason the words of the terrorists, while still fighting for themselves against the west. A sort of Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela for the Muslim world. There is no need to kill those people except in very extreme situations, otherwise it looks suspicious, and it will make diplomatic efforts much more difficult.

Surely we would rather solve these problems diplomatically, rather than with further bloodshed.

" No, we are not. Had we acted like them, Bagdhad would be a smoking ruin today"

America is using heavy-handed, counter-productive, violent action against those they perceive to be terrorists or sponsoring terrorism or whatever PR bull they use. Chechnya, Iraq, Iran?, West Bank/Gaza, all example of Russian, American, Israeli doctrines of military action against terrorists. That is what I am referring to, the small-time military details of course are going to be different, but does not affect what a war is. A war is the imposition of will, the imposition of one subjective over another equally valid subjective.

"We have the ability and technology to go after bad guys accurately"

Bad guys?? This is not an episode of teenage mutant hero turtles or dangermouse! These "bad guys" are only so in your culture. It is a subjective view. Those that hold them to be heros in other cultures have an equally subjective, equally valid view. What makes yours better than others? What makes yours worthy of being backed by guns and bombs?

Logic and reason can be used to justify anything. I can justify, with equal strength; democracy, libertarianism (which I do), communism, and despotism. Each are equally valid. While each hate the other (generally), objectively, there is nothing inherently wrong or evil or bad about any of them. You will turn round and say that despots kill people and make people suffer, but that view is based on your own subjective assumptions that killing and suffering is wrong. It so happens that I share those assumptions, and as complex as it may sound, objectively, those assumptions are not holier than thou, they deserve equal consideration to the assumptions that underly despots.

Its really a case of "pick and choose" your favoured system. I use logic and reason to justify libertarianism, others may do so with other forms. All I can say is, to each his own. I dont force my view on others.

"China had technically the strongest fleet in Asia [in 1894]

No, we did!

[Whaleboy]

" Did you argue against the war in Afghanistan"

No, because the Afghan people asked for our help and there was an active force in the North that we were justified in helping. If the Iraqi people did ask for our help, and there was already a civil war going on, then I would have supported it. There wasnt, and the lack of Iraqi support for the Americans is becoming clearer by day.

"But just because a decision is tough is not an argument for inaction."

It is not as black and white as that. One cannot go about international relations in monotone! Action vs inaction is not the case, one can still take action against those one doesnt like, but not break such moral, ethical and philosophical bounds (see the link in my sig) by declaring war! Suttleness, something young nations like America tend to lack .

"I guess we will see who is more resolute"


"If the American people supported a war against Iran Bush would be all over it"

I sincerely hope they dont. Bush is like a child with attention deficit disorder. That is, DONT ENCOURAGE HIM!

"I stated what I would need to know above to decide on an invasion. And even than it would still be a tough call for me. (As was Iraq.)"

At least you think about it, instead of mindlessly following the leader and repeating the propaganda parrot fashion. That doesnt mean I like your conclusions but at least one can debate them in a mature context.

[TCO]

Originally posted by elijah
" Did you argue against the war in Afghanistan"

No, because the Afghan people asked for our help and there was an active force in the North that we were justified in helping. If the Iraqi people did ask for our help, and there was already a civil war going on, then I would have supported it. There wasnt, and the lack of Iraqi support for the Americans is becoming clearer by day.

"But just because a decision is tough is not an argument for inaction."

It is not as black and white as that. One cannot go about international relations in monotone! Action vs inaction is not the case, one can still take action against those one doesnt like, but not break such moral, ethical and philosophical bounds (see the link in my sig) by declaring war! Suttleness, something young nations like America tend to lack .

"I guess we will see who is more resolute"


"If the American people supported a war against Iran Bush would be all over it"

I sincerely hope they dont. Bush is like a child with attention deficit disorder. That is, DONT ENCOURAGE HIM!

"I stated what I would need to know above to decide on an invasion. And even than it would still be a tough call for me. (As was Iraq.)"

At least you think about it, instead of mindlessly following the leader and repeating the propaganda parrot fashion. That doesnt mean I like your conclusions but at least one can debate them in a mature context.

1. We didn't go into Afghanistan because of the people there. It was to punish a regime that hosted Al Queda. Also, the Northern Alliance was a pretty tenuous force before we went in. And remember there was a northern Kurdish force that backed us in Iraq.

2. What evidence do you have that the Afghanis love us any more than the Iraqis? There are people in both countries who welcome us as liberators and those who resent us for toppling the old regime that benefitted them.

3. what was so funny? Did you laugh when the planes went into the buildings? I lost a reservist in the Pentagon. Was that funny too? If you don't understand our resolution, you should stick to your computer wargames. *****.

4. I never said it was black or white. Just showing that inaction has costs (as do actions) is showing that the matter is more complex than previosly portrayed. One very good lesson, I learned as a NAval officer was that innaction has a cost as well as action. (And this is not just wrt geopolitics or combat.)

[DinoDoc]

teenage mutant hero turtles

Please tell me that they didn't call it that in the UK.

[Pekka]

DD, they were called 'teinimutanttininjakilpikonnat' in finnish. Quite a word, huh?